- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Turismo digitale tra Stato e Regioni
by Valerio Lubello June 27, 2019

June 27, 2019

Cari amici nexiani, sono lieto di invitarVi all'evento in oggetto previsto per il prossimo primo di luglio presso la SDA Bocconi. Nelle pagine di Medialaws trovate il link per la registrazione: http://www.medialaws.eu/turismo-digitale-tra-stato-e-regioni-sda-bocconi-mi… Resto a disposizione per chi volesse ricevere ulteriori informazioni o confrontarsi sui temi ad oggetto della ricerca, cordialmente, Valerio Lubello

1 0

(no subject)
by costanza matteuzzi June 27, 2019

June 27, 2019

mi permetto di segnalare questo cordiali saluti Avv. Costanza Matteuzzi *Avvertenze ai sensi del Regolamento Generale UE 679/2016 (Regolamento Privacy)* Il presente messaggio, corredato dei relativi allegati, potrebbe contenere informazioni strettamente riservate o confidenziali ed è riferito esclusivamente al destinatario sopra indicato. Quest’ultimo è l'unico autorizzato ad usarlo, copiarlo e, sotto la propria responsabilità a diffonderlo. Chiunque ricevesse questo messaggio per errore o lo leggesse senza esserne legittimato è avvisato che trattenerlo, copiarlo, divulgarlo, distribuirlo a persone diverse dal destinatario è severamente proibito ed è pregato di rinviarlo immediatamente al mittente distruggendo l'originale. Grazie. This message, together with its annexes, may contain information strictly confidential or privileged and is intended only for the addressee(s) identified above, who only may use, copy and, under his/their responsibility, further disseminate it. If you are not the intended recipient or have read it without entitlement, please be aware that keeping, copying, disseminating or distributing this message to persons other than the addressee(s) is strictly forbidden and transmit it immediately back to the sender, deleting the original message received. Thank you.

1 0

MIT Media Lab director Joi Ito on Kara Swisher podcast Recode Decode - Vox
by J.C. DE MARTIN June 26, 2019

June 26, 2019

https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/6/26/18758776/joi-ito-mit-media-lab-resisti… The problem with tech people who want to solve problems On the latest Recode Decode, MIT Media Lab director Joi Ito says we need to resist the urge to oversimplify the problems we’re solving. By Eric Johnson@HeyHeyESJ Jun 26, 2019, 6:20am EDT (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

1 0

"Policy and investment recommendations for trustworthy Artificial Intelligence"
by J.C. DE MARTIN June 26, 2019

June 26, 2019

*REPORT / STUDY 26 June 2019 Policy and investment recommendations for trustworthy Artificial Intelligence** * This document was written by the High-Level Expert Group on AI (AI HLEG). It is the second deliverable of the AI HLEG and follows the publication of the group's first deliverable, Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI, published on 8 April 2019. The AI HLEG is an independent expert group that was set up by the European Commission in June 2018. PDF: https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=60343

1 0

changing our e-mail address
by Facultad de Comunicacion Digital Studies June 26, 2019

June 26, 2019

Please, take note that we've just change our e-mail address to digitalunav(a)unav.es thanks a lot, Ana Azurmendi Director of Digital Unav. Center for Internet Studies and Digital Life Spain -- *Digital Unav* digitalstudies(a)unav.es <rsalaver(a)unav.es> digitalunav(a)unav.es School of Communication University of Navarra 31080 Pamplona — Spain web: www.unav.edu/web/digitalunav twitter: @digitalunav <http://twitter.com/digitalunav> -- *Este mensaje puede contener información confidencial. Si usted no es el destinatario del mismo o lo ha recibido por error, por favor, bórrelo de sus sistemas y comuníquelo a la mayor brevedad al remitente. Los datos personales incluidos en los correos electrónicos que intercambie con el personal de la Universidad de Navarra podrán ser almacenados en la libreta de direcciones de su interlocutor y/o en los servidores de la Universidad durante el tiempo fijado en su política interna de conservación de información. La Universidad de Navarra gestiona dichos datos con fines meramente operativos, para permitir el contacto por email entre sus trabajadores/colaboradores y terceros. Puede consultar la Política de Privacidad de la Universidad de Navarra en la dirección: **https://www.unav.edu/aviso-legal* <https://www.unav.edu/aviso-legal>**** ** ** *This email message may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. The personal information included in email messages exchanged with employees of the University of Navarra may be stored in the database of your interlocutor and/or the servers of the University for the time-period stipulated by its internal information storage policy. The University stores such data for purely administrative purposes, to facilitate e-mail contact between its employees and third parties. The University of Navarra Privacy Policy may be accessed at https://www.unav.edu/aviso-legal <https://www.unav.edu/aviso-legal> ***** ** ** _Antes de imprimir este mensaje o sus documentos anexos, asegúrese de que es necesario. Proteger el medio ambiente está en nuestras manos. Before printing this e-mail or attachments, be sure it is necessary. _It is in our hands to protect the environment.__

1 0

Fwd: EXTENDED DEADLINE: Money talks? - The impact of corporate funding on academic research in information law and policy
by J.C. DE MARTIN June 26, 2019

June 26, 2019

(Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any)) Begin forwarded message: > Resent-From: <d004620(a)polito.it> > From: "Balazs Bodo" <bodo(a)uva.nl> > Date: 26 June 2019 at 10:33:00 CEST > > Subject: EXTENDED DEADLINE: Money talks? - The impact of corporate funding on academic research in information law and policy > > UPDATE & EXTENDED DEADLINE: > > Money talks? - The impact of corporate funding on academic research in information law and policy > > October 23, 2019, Amsterdam > > > > > > We have a number of announcements to make! > > First, we are happy to have Sandra Braman (Texas A&M University) as the keynote speaker for the conference! > > Second, we received an offer by a top tier academic press to publish quality conference papers, so we hope to have a lasting impact! > > Third, we decided to extend the deadline till the 7th of July, so more people have the chance to participate! > > Fourth, we would like to widen the scope of the discussion by accepting contributions in the form of code of best practices, blog posts, newspaper articles, etc. > > And last but not least, we can confirm the members of the program committee (see below). > > > > > > Call text and additional information: > > Concerns about the corporate funding of scientific research, and about the presence of corporate sponsors in scientific events are not an exceptional issue in the academic field. For decades, scientific domains like medicine, climate research[1], health [2] and nutrition [3] science have been struggling with controversies [4] and dilemmas around the direct and indirect impact of corporate funding [5] on the quality of their scholarship, integrity, independence, both actual, and as perceived by others. > > Research in the domain of the information society is not immune to these controversies. For example, the emerging giants of the information society are active research funders, and promote academic research as a way to influence public policy, or at least are perceived to do so. The information industry is also increasingly in exclusive control of fundamental research resources, such as data, or technology design. The 2017 Campaign for Accountability (CA) [6] controversy perfectly captures the complexity of the situation this creates around science. CA was apparently set out to identify Google’s influence on information policy research and (controversially) identified 329 research papers on public policy matters that were directly or indirectly funded by the search company. Only later it turned out that one of the funders of CA was Oracle [7], which at the same time was fighting Google in Court, and perceived CA as part of that effort. > > In September 2018 a wide group of academics raised concerns [8] about the role of surveillance technology company Palantir as sponsor of academic events on data privacy. The subsequent debate raised important questions about the dimensions in which different corporations active in the online world should be critically assessed, and the terms on which science can engage with them. > > The growing concerns about the influence of corporate funding of academic research in all disciplines can be attributed to the effects of several connected factors. For a number of financial, political and social reasons there is a significant pressure on academics to be entrepreneurial, and attract and pursue funding from private sources [9]. Large corporations have been responding to this situation with often substantial amounts of funding, and various forms of collaborations. > > > > On the other hand, access to private funders and corporate sponsors may carry benefits: corporate participation is a prerequisite of a substantive and inclusive dialogue on contentious issues and policy developments. It can also foster collaborations, and provide scientists access to information, data, people, which would otherwise remain beyond reach. However, the intentions of corporations to invest in academic research are not always transparent. Some consider it to be relatively harmless when corporate sponsorship is motivated by the desire to associate their brand with academia, or to contribute to society to boost the public company image. Others claim that corporations may decide to fund research with malevolent intentions in order to influence the public debate, or pursue some hidden agenda. It often remains unclear for the public what motivates a company to fund academic research. Corporate sponsorship may be seen as suspicious, and detrimental to the results of the scientific outcomes, even if it was done with the right motivation, an ultimately it may also have an impact on the public trust in science. > > > > In order to prevent a conflict of interest and to ensure objectivity and transparency in research, institutions [10] and governments have been developing [11] policies [12] and guidelines [13] to foster integrity. The resulting codes of conducts are based on several widely supported fundamental principles which are translated into more specific standards for good research practices. The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity [14], for instance, is built around four principles: reliability, honesty, respect and accountability. > > > > Yet, it remains to be seen how effectively such international [15], European, national, and domain specific codes of conducts can be monitored, and enforced, and how effective they can be in safeguarding both the integrity of research, and it’s public perception. > > > > Recent events and the call for an action-oriented discussion on corporate sponsorship therefore warrant the impact of corporate funding on academic research as the theme for the next meeting for the European Hub of the Global Network of Centers for Internet and Society (NoC). The conference strives to bring together scholars within the information law discipline, as well as related fields to discuss questions such as: > > > > Understanding the problem: the scope, structure, amount, topics and beneficiaries of corporate funding in research > > ● How big corporate influence is in the first place? How much money are we talking about? > > ● What are the forms of (corporate) research funding, such as financial support, funded positions, data access, etc.? > > ● What drives corporate funding decisions? > > > > Internal safeguards of research independence and integrity > > ● What are the best ways to safeguard research independence and integrity? > > ● Are the current principles and safeguards that guide engagement with corporate sponsors and funders adequate? > > ● What are the limitations of current integrity safeguards? Is there room for improvement? > > ● Are there specific/additional principles that should to inform such engagement in the area of information law and policy? > > ● Does it make sense to differentiate between different forms of sponsoring (institutional/project, in-kind/access/money)? > > > > Interfaces and firewalls between academia and industry > > ● What kind of integrity-infrastructure does academia need for the future where more and more essential resources are going to be in the exclusive control of corporations? > > ● What legal and policy innovations are needed to ensure due access to privately held or controller data sources? > > ● How could standards be set for the acceptance of corporate funding? What are the existing methods of standard setting? > > ● What is a proper way to signal the company support without creating the impression of industry research? > > > > The impact of corporate funding > > ● How to manage public trust in academia which is increasingly funded by private parties? > > ● What are the effects of increased acceptance of private funding of academic research on government spending on science? > > ● Are some geographies, institutions, and initiatives more dependent on, or more exposed to corporate funding? How to address these differences? > > ● Are there neglected research topics because they do not attract corporate funding? > > ● How to deal with public funding from authoritarian regimes? > > > > > > > > We welcome individual paper proposals and panel and workshop proposals, and other forms of interventions and actions, such as code of conducts, blog posts, best practices, etc. > > Please submit paper abstracts, and panel proposals of no more than a 1000 words to the following email address: money.talks(a)ivir.nl by July 7st, 2019. Acceptance decisions will be communicated in about a month. > > The event is organized by the Institute for Information Law, University of Amsterdam, as part of the European Hub of the Global Network of Centers for Internet and Society (NoC). > > Program Committee: Dr. Balazs Bodo, Prof. Dr. Mireille van Eechoud, Prof Dr. Nico Van Eijk, Sarah Eskens, Prof. Dr. Natali Helberger, Prof. Dr. Joris van Hoboken, Prof. Dr. Bernt Hugenholtz > > Detailed program and updates: https://www.ivir.nl/call-for-papers-money-talks-the-impact-of-corporate-fun… > > > > References: > > > > [1] Farrell, Justin. “Corporate Funding and Ideological Polarization about Climate Change.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, November 19, 2015, 201509433. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1509433112. > > [2] Besley, John C., Aaron M. McCright, Nagwan R. Zahry, Kevin C. Elliott, Norbert E. Kaminski, and Joseph D. Martin. “Perceived Conflict of Interest in Health Science Partnerships.” PLOS ONE 12, no. 4 (April 20, 2017): e0175643. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175643. > > [3] Aveyard, Paul, Derek Yach, Anna B. Gilmore, and Simon Capewell. “Should We Welcome Food Industry Funding of Public Health Research?” BMJ 353 (April 20, 2016): i2161. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i2161. > > [4] https://www.ucsusa.org/disguising-corporate-influence-science-about-sugar-a… > > [5] Krimsky, Sheldon. “Do Financial Conflicts of Interest Bias Research?: An Inquiry into the ‘Funding Effect’ Hypothesis.” Science, Technology, & Human Values, September 20, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243912456271. > > [6] https://campaignforaccountability.org/new-report-reveals-googles-extensive-… > > [7] http://fortune.com/2016/08/19/google-transparency-project-2/ > > [8] https://fundingmatters.tech/ > > [9] Holloway, Kelly Joslin. “Normalizing Complaint: Scientists and the Challenge of Commercialization.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 40, no. 5 (September 1, 2015): 744–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243915576004. > > [10] https://ec.europa.eu/info/research-and-innovation/strategy/support-policy-m… > > [11] https://www.vsnu.nl/en_GB/news-items/nieuwsbericht/471-new-netherlands-code… > > [12] http://archives.esf.org/media-centre/ext-single-news/article/the-european-c… > > [13] https://www.knaw.nl/nl/thematisch/ethiek/wetenschappelijke-integriteit > > [14] https://www.allea.org/allea-publishes-revised-edition-european-code-conduct… > > [15] https://www.knaw.nl/shared/resources/thematisch/bestanden/MontrealStatement… > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

Torna e-privacy
by Diego Giorio June 26, 2019

June 26, 2019

Torna e-privacy, stavolta a Bari, su un tema di grande attualità Saluti a tutti D E' con piacere che annunciamo il call for papers per e-privacy XXVI - 2019 autumn edition, che si svolgerà a Bari il 3 e 4 ottobre (giovedì e venerdì) con il tema: "Dalle Istituzioni alla Blockchain" Condivisione, fiducia, consenso e delega attraverso la tecnologia in un mondo senza privacy? Call for Papers Tecnologia, ultima frontiera. E così passammo dall'alfa all'omega della privacy, da Louis Brandeis a Mark Zuckerberg. Le multinazionali private stanno costruendo percorsi che promettono un nuovo mondo globale e integrato, in cui la profilazione e il tecnocontrollo sembrano essere la costante universale di gravitazione di ogni iniziativa, In Italia le istituzioni pubbliche, che non hanno mai brillato per capacità, comprensione e competenze sulla tecnologia, mostrano di aver cambiato passo lanciandosi nelle più ardite iniziative tecnologiche e rincorrono il vasto mondo delle possibilità tecniche, da quelle sensate come l'intelligenza artificiale alle ultime (o penultime) mode del momento come la blockchain, dimostrando subito, se non altro, l'incapacità di distinguere l'utile dal dilettevole. Esemplare il caso della blockchain, su cui tanto i politici hanno speso parole e impegnato soldi, che dopo l'effervescenza dell'iniziale momento di estasi mediatica, probabilmente funzionale alla speculazione finanziaria, resta una delle tante soluzioncine informatiche ancora in cerca di problemi. Bitcoin e altre criptovalute, cioè speculazione a parte, problemi che hanno trovato una soluzione attraverso la blockchain non risultano ancora pervenuti, nonostante ogni giorno ne venga proposta un'applicazione nuova e immaginifica, dall'agroalimentare all'energia, dal controllo delle foreste al monitoraggio dei viadotti autostradali. Encomiabile quest'impegno di volontà nell'esercizio del nuovismo anche in campo tecnologico, ma dobbiamo attenderci che resti tutto allo stadio di mera rappresentazione o si concretizzerà qualcosa? Manca l'analisi del problema, ovvero: come si può esplorare le categorie fondative che servono per i rapporti umani, privati e istituzionali, alla luce delle nuove tecnologie? Cioè da cosa è possibile far discendere un quadro analitico sui problemi della condivisione, della fiducia, del consenso e della delega. I cittadini e le imprese non chiedono l'applicazione di un nuovo strumento a qualche problemino pratico ma vogliono sapere come, attraverso le tecnologie, può essere migliorato, e migliorato in modo rivoluzionario, il rapporto con le istituzioni pubbliche e con i gruppi privati a cui il pubblico offre sostanziali privilegi. Senza questa risposta vivremo l'ennesima illusione tecnocratica, esperienza non nuova in Italia negli ultimi 30 anni, subendo ulteriori, e forse definitivi, strumenti di soggezione e sudditanza che, proposti per cambiare tutto, si tramuteranno, come in una sorta di Gattopardo digitale prossimo venturo, nell'avvento di nuovi sciacalli e iene. Il convegno Sin dal 2002 ad e-privacy si sono confrontate le tematiche di un mondo sempre più digitale e interconnesso, nel quale le possibilità di comunicazione e accesso alla conoscenza crescono continuamente, come pure crescono le possibilità di tecnocontrollo degli individui sin nei più intimi dettagli. L’approccio è interdisciplinare; dagli specialisti in informatica ai legali che si occupano di nuove tecnologie, dagli psicologi agli educatori, dagli operatori privati a quanti operano nel settore pubblico e istituzionale. Le proposte d'intervento Il comitato organizzatore valuterà proposte in ambito tecnologico, legale, istituzionale e giurisprudenziale, delle scienze sociali, della filosofia, dell'informatica e dell'attivismo digitale, della privacy, della non- discriminazione, della sorveglianza e dei diritti civili digitali. Verranno prese in considerazione anche proposte su temi diversi da quello dell'edizione, purché di interesse e di attualità. Le proposte dovranno contenere: Nome del relatore Eventuale associazione rappresentata Indirizzo di posta di riferimento Email e Recapito telefonico Titolo dell'intervento Durata prevista dell'intervento e dell'eventuale Q&A (15' o 30') Outline dell'intervento (circa 200-300 battute) Necessità di sussidi particolari oltre la videoproiezione Abstract con riferimenti (min 500 max 1500 battute) se disponibile alla pubblicazione del materiale sotto licenza libera se disponibile alla pubblicazione di registrazioni audio se disponibile alla pubblicazione di registrazioni video Le proposte di intervento dovranno essere presentate utilizzando il form disponibile in questa pagina: http://e-privacy.winstonsmith.org/e-privacy-XXVI-proposta.html Le proposte dovranno pervenire al comitato scientifico entro il termine ultimo del 22 luglio 2019. L'accettazione o meno delle proposte sarà comunicata entro il 26 luglio 2019. Gli elaborati, slide o relazioni dell'intervento dovranno pervenire in forma elettronica sul form online in seguito comunicato ai relatori. entro il 26 settembre 2019. Di seguito un elenco - non esaustivo - di argomenti pertinenti: Diritto alla Conoscenza e democrazie avanzate Diritti civili e politici dell’individuo: libertà di espressione, riservatezza e anonimato; Profilazione, geotagging, biometria, riconoscimento facciale Tecnologie della liberazione per l’arricchimento della privacy, crittografia e comunicazione sicura. Impatto delle tecnologie di controllo e dell’anonimato sui diritti dei lavoratori e degli studenti. Evoluzione dei mercati di dati personali: data retention, analisi big-data, circolazione e rivendita Dati personali in rete: captatori, intercettazioni lecite e illecite, anonimizzazione, ciclo di vita dei dati raccolti a fini d’investigazione criminale o di sorveglianza di polizia. Servizi digitali di Stato, informatizzazione obbligatoria, processo telematico. Gli interventi Gli interventi saranno effettuati dal vivo e, con il consenso dei relatori, registrati in audio e in video. I relatori potranno utilizzare documenti, slide o filmati, e gli interventi dovranno avere una durata compresa fra 15 e 30 minuti, incluso il tempo per Q&A. Potranno essere proposti anche interventi in videoconferenza. È apprezzata la disponibilità del relatore a concedere la pubblicazione del materiale prodotto e delle riprese dell’intervento sotto licenza libera. L'Organizzazione Al fine di mantenere la propria indipendenza, il convegno è, come sempre, a budget zero. I relatori e i partecipanti dovranno provvedere in proprio alle spese di viaggio e soggiorno. Eventuali sponsorizzazioni di ditte, enti, gruppi o associazioni hanno carattere non economico e sono intese come adesione morale ai temi e ai principi. Sede di e-privacy 2019 XXVI autumn edition. La sede di e-privacy 2019 XXVI autumn edition sarà la la Biblioteca dell'Ordine degli Avvocati di Bari.

1 0

Direttiva PSI - Atto III
by Cristiana Sappa June 25, 2019

June 25, 2019

Cari tutti, Mi permetto di segnalare che la revisione della Direttiva sul riutilizzo dei dati pubblici è stata approvata lo scorso 6 giugno 2019. Non appena verrà attribuito un numero al nuovo testo, potremo quindi leggere le nuove regole in materia di riutilizzo di dati pubblici e Open Data. Se ho ben capito, tra le novità vi sono (anche): 1. Il rafforzamento del principio di gratuità (e cioè il riuso potrà avvenire a costo zero e non più marginale, come invece indicava la revisione del 2013); 2. Il rafforzamento delle licenze aperte (e cioè non si potrà condizionare il riuso dei dati, salvo in caso di necessità); 3. L'estensione dell'ambito di applicazione della direttiva alle imprese di servizio pubblico (ad alcune condizioni) Vi è poi il tema dei dati della ricerca finanziata con fondi pubblici, che va coordinato con la Comunicazione CE "Towards better access to scientific information: Boosting the benefits of public investments in research" del 2012; e con una Raccomandazione CE del 2012 e rivista nel 2018, sull'accesso, preservazione dell'informazione scientifica. Un caro saluto, Cristiana

9 13

Re: [nexa] E.U. Parliament Passes Measure to Break Up Google in Symbolic Vote - The New York Times
by Alberto Cammozzo June 25, 2019

June 25, 2019

Scusate: Andrea Glorioso mi ha fatto notare la la notizia è del 2014... :-) Forza del wishful thinking... Grazie Andrea, Alberto On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 3:46 PM Alberto Cammozzo <ac+nexa(a)zeromx.net <mailto:ac%2Bnexa@zeromx.net>> wrote: > > <https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/28/business/international/google-european-u…> > > Europe’s resentment of the American technology giant Google reached a > new noise level on Thursday as the European Parliament passed a > nonbinding vote to break up the company. > > Although merely symbolic — the resolution carries no legal weight > — the > move came the day after a separate European body sought to further > expand citizens’ “right to be forgotten” privacy protections > against Google. > > Both moves are also playing out against the backdrop of a long-running > investigation by the European authorities of Google, on which the > European Union’s new antitrust chief, Margrethe Vestager, is still > getting up to speed. > > A breakup of Google in Europe will almost certainly not happen, legal > experts say. And whether any of the various policy moves afoot > will ever > significantly curtail the company’s business operations across the > region is still too soon to gauge. > Subscribe to With Interest > > Catch up and prep for the week ahead with this newsletter of the most > important business insights, delivered Sundays. > > But taken together, the level of policy-making activity being > devoted to > the company signifies the growing antipathy to American technological > dominance in the European Union even as its citizens grow ever more > reliant on its gadgetry and conveniences. Not since European officials > spent years seeking to rein in the powers of an earlier tech titan, > Microsoft, has an American company drawn such scrutiny on this side of > the Atlantic. > > European fears of American technology giants have been stoked in the > last 18 months by the revelations of Edward J. Snowden, the former > National Security Agency contractor, about American intelligence > agencies’ spying activities and perceived easy access to the world’s > tech infrastructure. Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany publicly > complained when it was discovered last year that her cellphone had > most > likely been tapped by American intelligence. > > In one sense, Thursday’s vote amounts to little more than political > posturing because the Parliament has no formal power over antitrust > policy in the 28 countries of the European Union. That power rests > with > the European Commission, the bloc’s executive arm. Yet the vote could > raise pressure on Ms. Vestager to speed a decision on whether to bring > formal antitrust charges against Google in an investigation that began > in 2010. That inquiry involves Google’s dominant position in Europe’s > Internet search business and asks whether the company’s search results > favor other Google-related services and hobble competing search > advertising platforms. > [...] > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it <mailto:nexa@server-nexa.polito.it> > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > > >

1 0

E.U. Parliament Passes Measure to Break Up Google in Symbolic Vote - The New York Times
by Alberto Cammozzo June 24, 2019

June 24, 2019

<https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/28/business/international/google-european-u…> Europe’s resentment of the American technology giant Google reached a new noise level on Thursday as the European Parliament passed a nonbinding vote to break up the company. Although merely symbolic — the resolution carries no legal weight — the move came the day after a separate European body sought to further expand citizens’ “right to be forgotten” privacy protections against Google. Both moves are also playing out against the backdrop of a long-running investigation by the European authorities of Google, on which the European Union’s new antitrust chief, Margrethe Vestager, is still getting up to speed. A breakup of Google in Europe will almost certainly not happen, legal experts say. And whether any of the various policy moves afoot will ever significantly curtail the company’s business operations across the region is still too soon to gauge. Subscribe to With Interest Catch up and prep for the week ahead with this newsletter of the most important business insights, delivered Sundays. But taken together, the level of policy-making activity being devoted to the company signifies the growing antipathy to American technological dominance in the European Union even as its citizens grow ever more reliant on its gadgetry and conveniences. Not since European officials spent years seeking to rein in the powers of an earlier tech titan, Microsoft, has an American company drawn such scrutiny on this side of the Atlantic. European fears of American technology giants have been stoked in the last 18 months by the revelations of Edward J. Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor, about American intelligence agencies’ spying activities and perceived easy access to the world’s tech infrastructure. Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany publicly complained when it was discovered last year that her cellphone had most likely been tapped by American intelligence. In one sense, Thursday’s vote amounts to little more than political posturing because the Parliament has no formal power over antitrust policy in the 28 countries of the European Union. That power rests with the European Commission, the bloc’s executive arm. Yet the vote could raise pressure on Ms. Vestager to speed a decision on whether to bring formal antitrust charges against Google in an investigation that began in 2010. That inquiry involves Google’s dominant position in Europe’s Internet search business and asks whether the company’s search results favor other Google-related services and hobble competing search advertising platforms. [...]

1 0